On 06/15/2017 03:41 PM, Bertho Stultiens wrote: > On 06/15/2017 03:02 PM, andy pugh wrote: >>> G00 1X1.0000 2X1.0200 3X14.950 4X10.9530... >>> something in this fashion comes to mind first >>> there may not be a YZABCIJK representation - just 1X through 15X >> That doesn't work with a conventional G-code interpreter because spaces are >> ignored. >> Looks like >> G1 X1.00002 X1,02003 X14.9504 X10.935 (Error, multiple X words in one block) >> XX YY ZZ as extra axes would be more backwards-compatible. > > Why would you want to adhere to gcode format when you need more than 9 > axes? The backwards compatibility is broken the moment you try to > address axis 10 or above. All generator tools will be lacking support > when trying to use more than 9 axes and need to be fixed anyway. > > It would be more prudent to take a step back and to abstract gcode to a > higher (modern) level. There would be a 1:1 backwards mapping as long as > you use up to 9 axes, but no longer when you use more.
However (to answer myself), if one would insist on gcode compatibility, then you can make an alternative setup if you use at most 9 axes at one time. You can use custom M-codes to remap axes on the fly. Then you have 9 active axes mapped from any number you need. The limitation is that you can only move 9 axes simultaneously. -- Greetings Bertho (disclaimers are disclaimed) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot _______________________________________________ Emc-users mailing list Emc-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-users
